From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FC801DFF2 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="s48f1/nk" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF244C433C8; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 07:34:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1704353652; bh=WB6QDBuh+8dTaDg6wIWWKoDCDxW/TzOz1dvaVK3aFFo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=s48f1/nkPD2EZRF3FPExmtgmsE2Ad1HAtbSvhpyspkrvOSdX51WXj98zJJJt/gobe fyEGv7XrtXNNvHkSyi0BRujT6fa0k3iAXXvO4i2Kt9Hyuptd4NgMbaw5hLcplv2RmW cDMLRVJ963NwBOC0qRnW6Y9ZtXpUQXpzYUphf1kc0UGNQa5LoYHFj8ebjZlgJEt1k/ qfC7lNYiBFwr04xENg6T9Hts67meZzgVAsZVvbPK0GlfpN/u3fTb8lUlVwHV1zDGvS /IPyDi1yRRavhbjjUOWzk1hMkRrzt94vV2YzUwxvyXAQg6+WPF/UvYGnWmNb+ZrOop 9CylnSmk+B4aA== Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 23:34:12 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfile: implement write caching Message-ID: <20240104073412.GF361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <170404837590.1754104.3601847870577015044.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170404837645.1754104.3271871045806193458.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240104013356.GP361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20240104072050.GA361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 11:28:21PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 11:20:50PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Sure, I just suspect the commit message is wrong and it's not about > > > mapping the page into the kernel address space but something else. > > > > Yeah, I only did A/B testing of before and after this patch, so it's > > quite plausible that it's the lookup that's slowing us down. > > Can we re-rerun the test once the pending xfile changes are in? > I'd be kinda surprised if the fairly simply xarray lookup for the > page is so expensive. If it is the patch is a good bandaid for that, > I'd just like to ensure it actually is still needed. Ok, I'll do that. Were you planning to send that first series to Chandan for 6.8? --D